User talk:Jp5472

Edit warring
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of published research from credible second and third-party sources, which means that Mark Dillon and the Newsday's observations are perfectly sound for inclusion, just as Jim Fusilli's observation that "Brian Wilson may have almost written himself in a dead hole" is, as you put it, "conjecture". '''Sources which make independent observations are not banned from Wikipedia. In this case, there are two sources for the same piece of information.''' Please stop edit warring the God Only Knows article and discuss on the talk page why you think the information should be excluded, and to cite which protocols you believe the text violates. (WP:AVOIDEDITWAR)--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * You will be reported per WP:3RR and blocked from Wikipedia if you revert once more before a consensus is reached.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Edit warring at God Only Knows
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at God Only Knows. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. The full report is at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If you don't mind a suggestion from me, Jp5472, the point is that when there is a disagreement about content both sides tend to think they're right. So it's really not going to work for the rules to say "It's OK to keep on reverting providing you're the one in the right" - that way, the edit wars would never end. What's needed instead is to agree not to edit war any further, and to go discuss the disputed material on the article talk page - and let a discussion-based consensus decide what the article will say. Neatsfoot (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)